Americans United - President Barack Obamahttps://au.org/tags/president-barack-obama
enSay You Want A Christian Nation?: Let’s Try This Onehttps://au.org/blogs/wall-of-separation/say-you-want-a-christian-nation-let-s-try-this-one
<a href="/about/people/rob-boston">Rob Boston</a><div class="field field-name-field-blog-type field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="/blogs/wall-of-separation">Wall of Separation</a></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-callout field-type-text-long field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even">In a recent poll, 57 percent of Republicans said they believe Christianity should be the country’s official religion.</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="prose"><p>Last week <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/02/25/republicans-christian-america_n_6754032.html">an article</a> began circulating on social media claiming that 57 percent of Republicans in a recent poll said they believe Christianity should be the country’s official religion.</p><p>I didn’t want to believe this at first. I figured it must be an internet poll, or one that relied on a confusing question.</p><p>Nope. <a href="http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2015/PPP_Release_National_22415.pdf">The poll</a> was conducted by Public Policy Polling, a North Carolina-based firm that some describe as Democratic-leaning but that overall has a good reputation. Most of the poll deals with support for potential GOP presidential candidates in 2016; question 17 asked about support for establishing Christianity.</p><p>The question asked (of Republicans only) was straightforward: “Would you support or oppose establishing Christianity as the national religion?”</p><p>Amazingly, 57 percent said yes. Thirty percent said no, and 13 percent were not sure.</p><p>In light of these results, I’d like to make a modest proposal: I suggest that we repeal the First Amendment and make the United Church of Christ (UCC) the nation’s official, established religion.</p><p>Surely conservatives will have no problem with this. After all, the UCC is a large Christian denomination. It is even has Christ’s name in it. In addition, the denomination has long roots in America. It grew out of the Congregational tradition and can trace its history back to the Puritan days. What could be more American than that?</p><p>Doctrinally, the United Church of Christ <a href="http://www.ucc.org/about-us_what-we-believe">believes in</a> the trinity, the resurrection of Jesus and the sacrament of baptism. These are all mainstream Christian beliefs.</p><p>Americans United Executive Director Barry W. Lynn is an ordained minister in the United Church of Christ. As such, he would be well placed to explain the doctrines of our newly established church to all Americans. President Barack Obama, who is a member of the church, would undoubtedly be pleased to help out. Perhaps he could name Lynn as the head of the established church.</p><p>Lynn and Obama could, for example, explain the church’s stand on LGBT rights. The UCC, in keeping with Christ’s commandments to love all, welcomes “the full participation of LGBT people in the UCC’s life and ministry.”</p><p>They could also explain the church’s stands favoring legal abortion, opposition to the death penalty, calls for access to health care for all and its push for aggressive action to combat climate change – stands the church’s leadership believes are mandated by its Christian faith. And since these stands are buttressed by the Christian beliefs of our new established church, they should, of course, become the law for all the follow.</p><p>Now, I think most readers know that I’m joking. I don’t really support repealing the First Amendment or making the UCC our official church. My point is that the “Christian” religion many of the Republicans want to see established probably mimics what is taught at their own churches.</p><p>These churches are likely very conservative and take stands that are radically different from the ones espoused by the United Church of Christ. Yet all of these denominations are Christian.</p><p>It does not help to argue, as some inevitably will, that the followers of the UCC are not “real” Christians. Indeed, to assert that is deeply offensive. The members of the UCC have a passion for their beliefs that shines through their words and deeds; they are able to support their positions with just as many Bible passages as the fundamentalists who oppose them on every issue.</p><p>To say which faction is correct – and there would be many factions because there are dozens, if not hundreds of Christian denominations – would require a type of theological arbiter – a man or a woman, someone flawed and imperfect, charged with the task of sorting out religious “truth” from “error” or “heresy.” All you have to do is pick up any history book to learn how dangerous that can be.</p><p>The saddest thing about this survey is that the Republicans polled would undoubtedly call themselves conservatives. Yet they don’t seek to conserve, or even respect, the work of genius that is our First Amendment. They would instead blithely toss it aside for the false promises of a government that believes it can enforce morality by imposing an official version of the Christian faith.</p><p>They should be careful what they ask for. The “Christian nation” they’re so eager to usher in may end up looking quite different from what they imagine.</p></div></div><div class="tags clearfix"><div class="field-label">Issues:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><span class="field-item"><a href="/issues/responding-common-attacks-church-state-separation">Responding to Common Attacks on Church-State Separation</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/issues/history-and-origins-church-state-separation">History and Origins of Church-State Separation</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/issues/legal-foundations-church-state-separation">Legal Foundations of Church-State Separation</a></span></div></div><div class="tags clearfix"><div class="field-label">Tags:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/united-church-of-christ">United Church of Christ</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/barry-w-lynn">Barry W. Lynn</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/president-barack-obama">President Barack Obama</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/public-policy-polling">Public Policy Polling</a></span></div></div>Mon, 02 Mar 2015 16:25:02 +0000Rob Boston10928 at https://au.orghttps://au.org/blogs/wall-of-separation/say-you-want-a-christian-nation-let-s-try-this-one#commentsOutrage Manufacturers: Far Right Uses Prayer Breakfast Comments To Fuel Its Ongoing Anti-Obama Crusadehttps://au.org/blogs/wall-of-separation/outrage-manufacturers-far-right-uses-prayer-breakfast-comments-to-fuel-its
<a href="/about/people/rob-boston">Rob Boston</a><div class="field field-name-field-blog-type field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="/blogs/wall-of-separation">Wall of Separation</a></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-callout field-type-text-long field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even">You need a strong stomach to read about the Crusades.</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="prose"><p>Right on cue, the right wing <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/06/us/politics/obama-national-prayer-breakfast-terrorism-islam.html?smid=nytnow-share&amp;smprod=nytnow">is in high dudgeon</a> over comments President Barack Obama made during last week’s National Prayer Breakfast that are supposedly anti-Christian and offensive.</p><p>The president was pointing out that the terror and bloodshed of groups like ISIS is hardly unique from an historical perspective.</p><p>Here is what the president said that has the Religious Right and its Tea Party sidekicks so worked up: “Lest we get on our high horse and think this is unique to some other place, remember that during the Crusades and the Inquisition, people committed terrible deeds in the name of Christ. In our home country, slavery and Jim Crow all too often was justified in the name of Christ.”</p><p>You would have to be a complete ignoramus who has never picked up a history book not to know that this is true.</p><p>Let’s consider just the Crusades for a moment. Depending on which historian you listen to, there were seven or eight major crusades between 1096 and 1291. They were exceedingly violent events.</p><p>How many people died? It’s impossible to say given the record-keeping of the time, but many historians say 1 million is a low estimate. Jay Michaelson of Religion News Service put the figure at 1.7 million in a <a href="http://www.religionnews.com/2015/02/06/obama-right-crusades-islamic-extremism-analysis/?utm_medium=email&amp;utm_campaign=RNS+Daily+Report+--+Friday+Feb+6+2015&amp;utm_content=RNS+Daily+Report+--+Friday+Feb+6+2015+CID_5a1b5d62da53a7552f4ace62cbdea226&amp;utm_source=Campaign%20Monitor&amp;utm_term=VIEW%20STORY%20AT%20WWWRELIGIONNEWSCOM">recent column</a>. Far-right Catholic apologists for the Crusades – yes, there are such people – peddle much lower figures, but these aren’t taken seriously.</p><p>None of this is exactly a secret. There are many good histories of the Crusades. I recommend <em><a href="http://www.amazon.com/Dream-Tomb-History-Crusades/dp/0815410867/ref=sr_1_1_twi_2?ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1423487167&amp;sr=8-1&amp;keywords=the+dream+and+the+tomb">The Dream and the Tomb: A History of the Crusades</a> </em>by Robert Payne. For anyone foolish enough to believe that the Crusades weren’t so bad, here are some things to consider:</p><p>* The First Crusade was led by a ragged poor man named Peter the Hermit. Peter’s army consisted mainly of ordinary folk, among them women and children, armed with primitive weapons. As they marched across Europe, Peter lost control of his army, and the first battle it fought was against other Christians. A square-off in Hungary resulted in about 4,000 deaths and an ensuring clash that Payne calls “a massacre.” Near Belgrade, residents saw Peter’s army approaching and fled. The crusaders set fire to the city.</p><p>* Peter’s patchwork army was no match for professional Muslim warriors. Most were slaughtered in battle. Princes and kings took up the crusade with better-equipped forces. One army, under Prince Bohemond, encircled the city of Antioch. After capturing a band of spies, Bohemond had them cooked alive on spits as a warning to other spies.</p><p>* Not all Crusades were against Muslims. During what is known as the “Albigensian Crusade” in 1209, Pope Innocent III ordered Crusader armies to wipe out followers of a Christian heresy known as Catharism. Beziers, a Cathar stronghold in France, was besieged. The city’s defenses were breached during a sortie, and the invading army forced its way in. An estimated 15,000-20,000 people were killed. Ironically, many who were killed were undoubtedly not Cathars. Some years later, a story circulated (possibly apocryphal) that an abbot had been asked by soldiers how to differentiate between heretics and non-heretics. The cleric allegedly replied, “Kill them all, God will know His own.”</p><p>* Late in 1218, during the Fifth Crusade, the Crusaders attacked the city of Damietta in Egypt. A long siege dragged on for nearly a year, and, as Payne writes, “famine and pestilence stalked the city.” When the Crusader army finally broke through the city’s walls, they found mostly corpses. An estimated 80,000 people had died. About 3,000 were left. Most of them were sold to slave markets.</p><p>These are just a few stories. There are many like them. You need a strong stomach to read about the Crusades.</p><p>To bring up this history in no way excuses the barbaric acts of groups like ISIS. Rather, some historical context helps us understand that zealots fueled by dogmatic beliefs are capable of great evil. The vile acts of ISIS are so shocking in part because they are spread via modern technology. But they aren’t new. We’ve seen this kind of violence before – from many religious groups.</p><p>Maybe, just maybe, Obama wasn’t trying to knock Christianity. Perhaps he was merely pointing out something that anyone who has ever picked up a history book knows to be true: that in this world, violence in the name of faith has a long and unfortunate pedigree.</p><p> </p></div></div><div class="tags clearfix"><div class="field-label">Issues:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><span class="field-item"><a href="/issues/history-and-origins-church-state-separation">History and Origins of Church-State Separation</a></span></div></div><div class="tags clearfix"><div class="field-label">Tags:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/president-barack-obama">President Barack Obama</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/the-crusades">the Crusades</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/robert-payne">Robert Payne</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/bohemond">Bohemond</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/peter-the-hermit">Peter the Hermit</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/cathars">Cathars</a></span></div></div>Mon, 09 Feb 2015 16:48:55 +0000Rob Boston10875 at https://au.orghttps://au.org/blogs/wall-of-separation/outrage-manufacturers-far-right-uses-prayer-breakfast-comments-to-fuel-its#commentsBreakfast Club: Obama Endorses Separation At Evangelical Eventhttps://au.org/blogs/wall-of-separation/breakfast-club-obama-endorses-separation-at-evangelical-event
<a href="/about/people/rob-boston">Rob Boston</a><div class="field field-name-field-blog-type field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="/blogs/wall-of-separation">Wall of Separation</a></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-callout field-type-text-long field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even">If the National Prayer Breakfast is going to occur, a message affirming church-state separation is exactly what its organizers need to hear.</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="prose"><p>I’ll be honest: I’m not a huge fan of the National Prayer Breakfast. It’s a privately sponsored event, but every year the president attends and there’s often a lot of talk about God and country. It seems like another example of the annoying “civil religion” that so plagues our nation.</p><p>The breakfast took place this morning, and sure enough, President Barack Obama was there. He gave pretty <a href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2015/02/05/remarks-president-national-prayer-breakfast">extensive remarks</a> – and among them was a strong defense of separation of church and state.</p><p>The president spoke about the need for religious people to be humble. He then added, “And the second thing we need is to uphold the distinction between our faith and our government. Between church and between state. The United States is one of the most religious countries in the world – far more religious than most Western developed countries. And one of the reasons is that our founders wisely embraced the separation of church and state.</p><p>“Our government does not sponsor a religion, nor does it pressure anyone to practice a particular faith, or any faith at all. And the result is a culture where people of all backgrounds and beliefs can freely and proudly worship, without fear, or coercion….”</p><p>“That’s not the case in theocracies that restrict people’s choice of faith. It’s not the case in authoritarian governments that elevate an individual leader or a political party above the people, or in some cases, above the concept of God Himself. So the freedom of religion is a value we will continue to protect here at home and stand up for around the world, and is one that we guard vigilantly here in the United States.”</p><p>The National Prayer Breakfast is sponsored by the Fellowship Foundation, an evangelical group that is closely connected to far-right politics. In 2010, some groups called on Obama to skip the event because of the Fellowship’s ties to an extreme anti-gay legislator in Uganda who was pushing a bill that called for imprisonment and execution of gays. Obama went to the breakfast that year, but he blasted the anti-gay bill, calling it “odious.”</p><p>If the breakfast is going to occur – and it’s more than 50 years old at this point – a message affirming church-state separation is exactly what its organizers need to hear. They need someone to explain to them, as Obama did this morning, that the separation principle is the protector of religion, not its enemy.</p><p>I’d still prefer there were no National Prayer Breakfast. But if the president feels compelled to attend, I’m glad he took some time to spread the gospel of separation of church and state.</p></div></div><div class="tags clearfix"><div class="field-label">Issues:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><span class="field-item"><a href="/issues/prayer-at-government-events-and-legislative-meetings">Prayer at Government Events and Legislative Meetings</a></span></div></div><div class="tags clearfix"><div class="field-label">Tags:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/president-barack-obama">President Barack Obama</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/national-prayer-breakfast">National Prayer Breakfast</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/fellowship-foundation">The Fellowship Foundation</a></span></div></div>Thu, 05 Feb 2015 18:02:12 +0000Rob Boston10869 at https://au.orghttps://au.org/blogs/wall-of-separation/breakfast-club-obama-endorses-separation-at-evangelical-event#commentsReligious Freedom Day 2015: Resolve To Protect True Freedom Of Consciencehttps://au.org/blogs/wall-of-separation/religious-freedom-day-2015-resolve-to-protect-true-freedom-of-conscience
<a href="/about/people/rob-boston">Rob Boston</a><div class="field field-name-field-blog-type field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="/blogs/wall-of-separation">Wall of Separation</a></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-callout field-type-text-long field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even">Happy Religious Freedom Day! </div></div></div><div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="prose"><p>Today is Religious Freedom Day. As I mentioned in <a href="https://www.au.org/blogs/wall-of-separation/seize-the-day-upcoming-religious-freedom-event-provides-an-opportunity-for">a recent post</a>, this event is not as well-known as it should be. At Americans United, we’d like to see that change.</p><p>Religious Freedom Day marks the passage of the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom. <a href="https://www.au.org/files/pdf_documents/virginia-statute-for.pdf">This bill</a>, drafted by Thomas Jefferson and pushed through the Virginia legislature by James Madison, became law on Jan. 16, 1786. Many scholars regard it as a precursor to the First Amendment.</p><p>The heart of the law reads: “Be it enacted by the General Assembly, That no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinion in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish enlarge, or affect their civil capacities.”</p><p>Under federal law, the president is required to issue a proclamation recognizing Religious Freedom Day. President Barack Obama’s <a href="http://www.au.org/files/2015religiousfreedom%20prc%20rel.pdf">proclamation for 2015</a> is quite good.</p><p>“The First Amendment prohibits the Government from establishing religion,” it reads. “It protects the right of every person to practice their faith how they choose, to change their faith, or to practice no faith at all, and to do so free from persecution and fear.”</p><p>The proclamation goes on to say, “This religious freedom allows faith to flourish, and our Union is stronger because a vast array of religious communities coexist peacefully with mutual respect for one another. Since the age of Jefferson and Madison, brave women and men of faith have challenged our conscience; today, our Nation continues to be shaped by people of every religion and of no religion, bringing us closer to our founding ideals. As heirs to this proud legacy of liberty, we must remain vigilant in our efforts to safeguard these freedoms.”</p><p>Americans United has a number of resources available to help you celebrate Religious Freedom Day and spread the word about it.</p><p>You can read the text of the statute <a href="https://www.au.org/files/pdf_documents/virginia-statute-for.pdf">here</a>. Read about the background of the bill <a href="https://www.au.org/blogs/wall-of-separation/legacy-of-liberty-celebrating-religious-freedom-day-2013">here</a>. If you follow <a href="https://www.facebook.com/americansunited?ref=ts">AU on Facebook</a>, you will find several Religious Freedom Day graphics that you’re free to share.</p><p>But perhaps the most important thing you can do on Religious Freedom Day is reflect upon the grand measure of freedom it gave us – and resolve to oppose all of those who, even today, are working to undermine the handiwork of Jefferson and Madison.</p><p> </p><p> </p></div></div><div class="tags clearfix"><div class="field-label">Issues:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><span class="field-item"><a href="/issues/history-and-origins-church-state-separation">History and Origins of Church-State Separation</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/issues/legal-foundations-church-state-separation">Legal Foundations of Church-State Separation</a></span></div></div><div class="tags clearfix"><div class="field-label">Tags:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/religious-freedom-day">Religious Freedom Day</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/thomas-jefferson">thomas jefferson</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/james-madison">James Madison</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/president-barack-obama">President Barack Obama</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/virginia-statute-religious-freedom">Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom</a></span></div></div>Fri, 16 Jan 2015 15:57:13 +0000Rob Boston10817 at https://au.orghttps://au.org/blogs/wall-of-separation/religious-freedom-day-2015-resolve-to-protect-true-freedom-of-conscience#commentsMississippi Madness: Group Wants To Designate An Official Religionhttps://au.org/blogs/wall-of-separation/mississippi-madness-group-wants-to-designate-an-official-religion
<a href="/about/people/rob-boston">Rob Boston</a><div class="field field-name-field-blog-type field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="/blogs/wall-of-separation">Wall of Separation</a></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-callout field-type-text-long field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"> There is no way to proclaim – even in a quasi-official manner – an official state religion without running afoul of the U.S. Constitution.</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="prose"><p>A group in Mississippi is collecting signatures for a ballot initiative to change the state constitution in several ways.</p><p>The proposal put forth by the <a href="http://magnoliaheritage.com/Home.html">Magnolia State Heritage Campaign</a> is pretty wide-ranging and is being pitched as a way to protect “Southern” (read: pro-Confederate) culture. It contains 12 subsections.</p><p>I suspect there is a lot in <a href="http://magnoliaheritage.com/uploads/Initiative_46_Petition_Form.pdf">Initiative 46</a> that would offend people, but the part that is relevant to Americans United is this: “The State of Mississippi hereby acknowledges the fact of her identity as a principally Christian and quintessentially Southern state, in terms of the majority of her population, character, culture, history, and heritage, from 1817 to the present; accordingly, the Holy Bible is acknowledged as a foremost source of her founding principles, inspiration, and virtues; and, accordingly, prayer is acknowledged as a respected, meaningful, and valuable custom of her citizens. The acknowledgments hereby secured shall not be construed to transgress either the national or the state Constitution’s Bill of Rights.”</p><p>OK, where to begin? For starters, this is a huge slap in the face to anyone living in Mississippi who is not Christian. The clear implication is that Christians who love the “Holy Bible” are the real, bona fide residents of the state. Everyone else is just some kind of lesser, second-class citizen who will be tolerated – maybe.</p><p>Secondly, this is the sort of embarrassing thing that keeps a poor state like Mississippi mired in the 19th century and does nothing to address the real issues facing the state. Really, folks, the country is changing. There is a lot of religious diversity out there. Many of us consider this a good thing and celebrate the fact that our Constitution established a framework for freedom of conscience that has sparked an amazing array of religions and philosophies. All of this talk about your Christian heritage, culture and traditions is just more pining for the bad old days when governments enforced theology. It’s kind of pathetic.</p><p>Finally, there is no way to proclaim – even in a quasi-official manner – an official state religion without running afoul of the U.S. Constitution. If the people of Mississippi are foolish enough to pass this monstrosity, there’s little doubt it would be immediately challenged in court. And the state will lose.</p><p>Mississippi Secretary of State Delbert Hosemann has given the group <a href="http://www.localmemphis.com/story/d/story/controversial-proposal-seeks-to-preserve-mississip/41062/dgmAlEA9JkmOcl3jnncf-g">the green light to proceed</a>. To get the measure on the November 2016 ballot, backers will have to collect at least 125,000 signatures.</p><p>It looks like they have some work to do to shore up support. The organization’s “Business Brigade” consists of one medical doctor, a consulting company and a firm that sells t-shirts and bird baths.</p><p>The list of endorsers also leaves a bit to be desired. It consists of Susan Akin, who was Miss America in 1986; former state representative Mark DuVall and Julie Hawkins, described as a novelist, blogger, singer and songwriter. (Her books are self-published; one of them won an award from a group that idolizes Confederate leaders.)</p><p>I tried to cut these people some slack, but you don’t have to spend much time researching them to realize that they are a bunch of crackpots. Their <a href="https://www.facebook.com/MagnoliaHeritage">Facebook page</a> contains a graphic attacking “Dishonest Abe” Lincoln and asserting that President Barack Obama is a Muslim; it links to several conspiracy-themed “birther” websites.</p><p>These people have no credibility, and they should be kept far away from the constitution of any state. Their cause is truly lost. If they had any sense, they’d go back to drooling over “Birth of a Nation” and save the state a lot of heartache.</p><p>I know there are a lot of folks in Mississippi who appreciate the separation of church and state and who realize why proposals like this are bad for the state. I urge them to speak out. They need to help their fellow residents understand that it’s time to stop pining for a culture that promotes Christian supremacism and church-state union.</p><p>Those are bad things. The country should move away from them. That includes Mississippi. </p><p> </p></div></div><div class="tags clearfix"><div class="field-label">Issues:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><span class="field-item"><a href="/issues/descriptions-and-activities-religious-right-groups">Descriptions and Activities of Religious Right Groups</a></span></div></div><div class="tags clearfix"><div class="field-label">Tags:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/magnolia-state-heritage-campaign">Magnolia State Heritage Campaign</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/mississippi">Mississippi</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/delbert-hosemann">Delbert Hosemann</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/julie-hawkins">Julie Hawkins</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/susan-akin">Susan Akin</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/mark-duvall">Mark Duvall</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/abraham-lincoln">Abraham Lincoln</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/president-barack-obama">President Barack Obama</a></span></div></div>Mon, 03 Nov 2014 15:58:27 +0000Rob Boston10654 at https://au.orghttps://au.org/blogs/wall-of-separation/mississippi-madness-group-wants-to-designate-an-official-religion#commentsPresidential Piety: Obama’s Faith Is In The Public Eye Againhttps://au.org/blogs/wall-of-separation/presidential-piety-obama-s-faith-is-in-the-public-eye-again
<a href="/about/people/ms-sarah-jones">Sarah Jones</a><div class="field field-name-field-blog-type field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="/blogs/wall-of-separation">Wall of Separation</a></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-callout field-type-text-long field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even">The New York Times reports that in lieu of church, Obama celebrated the holiday by singing carols, opening presents with his family and greeting soldiers at a local military base in his birth state, Hawaii. </div></div></div><div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="prose"><p>News that President Obama did not attend Christmas church services has reignited a public debate over the president’s true religious affiliation. The <em>New York Times </em><a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/29/us/as-the-obamas-celebrate-christmas-rituals-of-faith-stay-on-the-sidelines.html?hp&amp;_r=2&amp;">reports</a> that in lieu of church, Obama celebrated the holiday by singing carols, opening presents with his family and greeting soldiers at a local military base in his birth state, Hawaii.<br /><br />To most Americans that probably sounds like an average Christmas -- except, perhaps, for visiting a military base. According to a recent Pew Research <a href="http://www.pewforum.org/2013/12/18/celebrating-christmas-and-the-holidays-then-and-now/">poll</a> cited by the <em>Times</em>, 54% of Americans reported plans to attend Christmas religious services. That number is down from previous years, a figure consistent with a general demographic shift away from organized religion and toward less structured demonstrations of faith.<br /><br />Some commentators find Obama’s reluctance to attend services unusual. Gary Scott Smith, author of <em>Faith and the Presidency: From George Washington to George W. Bush</em>, told the <em>Times</em> that Obama had gone to church “hardly at all” as president, and added, “It's very unusual for a president not to attend Christmas services.”<br /><br />The <em>Christian Post</em> calls it “<a href="http://www.christianpost.com/news/obama-criticized-for-skipping-church-on-christmas-attends-service-only-18-times-during-presidency-111680/">telling</a>” that Obama has attended church a mere 18 times during his presidency, compared to his predecessor, George W. Bush, who visited 120 services.<br /><br />It’s not the first time the Religious Right and its affiliated media outlets have criticized Obama over his Christmas observances; in 2009, the <em>Post</em> also <a href="http://www.christianpost.com/news/reports-still-no-church-for-obama-even-on-christmas-42619/">reported</a> that Obama had omitted church from his annual holiday trip to Hawaii.<br /><br />The resulting furor from the fringe forced urban legend debunker Snopes.com to weigh in on the subject. It pointed out that Obama was <a href="http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/trifecta.asp">hardly</a> the first American president to skip church on Christmas. While it might be a stretch to call it a tradition for presidents to skip Christmas services, there’s certainly a bipartisan precedent.<br /><br />But four years later, facts have once again been obscured by the public scramble to pigeonhole Obama’s religious beliefs. The question has dogged Obama from the 2008 elections forward. To the Religious Right, he’s just not Christian enough, and rumors about his secret Muslim identity refuse to die. In 2010, a Pew Research poll <a href="http://www.pewforum.org/2010/08/18/growing-number-of-americans-say-obama-is-a-muslim/">found</a> that one-in-five Americans believed, despite all evidence to the contrary, that Obama is actually a Muslim. <br /><br />And the Religious Right has some strange company when it comes to questioning the president’s professed Christianity. Earlier this year, celebrity atheist Richard Dawkins <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/26/richard-dawkins-obama-atheist_n_4166589.html">told</a> TV personality Bill Maher that “Like many people, I’m sure that Obama is an atheist.”<br /><br />These speculations are, of course, directly at odds with what Obama publicly says about his faith. He has professed Christianity throughout the duration of his political career, and clear references to the faith consistently appear in major speeches. As president, he continued the Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships started by President Bush, and the former head of that office, Joshua DuBois, acted as Obama’s long-term spiritual advisor.<br /><br />DuBois, who still sends the president a daily devotional, told the <em>Times</em>, “He has a serious practice of faith even though he doesn’t necessarily wear it on his sleeve.” And if that’s the case, Obama has far more in common with the average American Christian than his foes on the fringe would like us all to believe.<br /><br />It can even be argued that Obama’s version of Christianity, a less ostentatious version than his predecessor’s, adheres a bit more closely to what Jesus actually taught in the Gospels. “Be careful not to practice your righteousness in front of others to be seen by them. If you do, you will have no reward from your Father in heaven,” the Book of Matthew recounts.<br /><br />Strange how the Religious Right likes to ignore that particular lesson.<br /><br />It is, of course, more than a bit lamentable that the personal religious beliefs of any elected official are considered so newsworthy. But as long as the president’s religion is in the public eye, perhaps it’s time to point out the American people, who elected Obama to two terms in office, might actually prefer his quieter faith. </p></div></div><div class="tags clearfix"><div class="field-label">Issues:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><span class="field-item"><a href="/issues/other-issues-regarding-churches-and-politics">Other Issues regarding Churches and Politics</a></span></div></div><div class="tags clearfix"><div class="field-label">Tags:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/joshua-dubois">Joshua Dubois</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/president-barack-obama">President Barack Obama</a></span></div></div>Mon, 30 Dec 2013 17:13:38 +0000Ms. Sarah Jones9377 at https://au.orghttps://au.org/blogs/wall-of-separation/presidential-piety-obama-s-faith-is-in-the-public-eye-again#commentsGenerally Nutty: FRC Executive Says Some In The Military Are Itching To ‘Take Out’ President Obamahttps://au.org/blogs/wall-of-separation/generally-nutty-frc-executive-says-some-in-the-military-are-itching-to-take
<a href="/about/people/rob-boston">Rob Boston</a><div class="field field-name-field-blog-type field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="/blogs/wall-of-separation">Wall of Separation</a></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-callout field-type-text-long field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even">In the WorldNetDaily bizarro world, William Boykin is portrayed as a bold Christian warrior constantly kept down by appeasers, gays, secularists and a band of nefarious America haters.</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="prose"><p>Military leaders are so disgusted with President Barack Obama that they’d like to launch a coup d’état to get rid of him, but that pesky U.S. Constitution keeps getting in the way, says a retired Army general who now works for the Family Research Council.</p><p>“People I’ve spoken to would like to see the military ‘fulfill their constitutional duty and take out the president,’” William G. “Jerry” Boykin told <a href="http://www.wnd.com/2013/10/top-generals-obama-is-purging-the-military/?cat_orig=politics">WorldNetDaily</a> last week. “Our Constitution puts a civilian in charge of the military and as a result a coup would not be constitutional. You’re not going to see a coup in the military.”</p><p>Boykin added, “I talk to a lot of folks who don’t support where Obama is taking the military, but in the military they can't say anything.”</p><p>Reporting on Boykin’s shocking comments, <em>The National Journal</em> <a href="http://www.nationaljournal.com/defense/retired-general-some-in-military-want-to-take-out-the-president-20131101">indicated</a> that WorldNetDaily (WND) is “a website best known for pushing Obama ‘birther’ conspiracy theories.”</p><p>That’s just scratching the surface. If you’re not familiar with WorldNetDaily, it’s a site so far to the right that it make the Fox News Channel looks like the <em>People’s Daily World</em>. It’s chockfull of conspiracy theories, racist articles and all-around kookery.</p><p>A flavor of the site can perhaps be found in some recent headlines: “Newspapers directed: Cover-up Black Violence,” “Riot Warnings Over Food-Stamp Cuts” and “Claim: Obama Hid ‘Gay Life’ To Become President.”</p><p>Boykin apparently has a cozy relationship with this wacko site, and WND frequently reports on his antics. In the WND bizarro world, Boykin is portrayed as a bold Christian warrior constantly kept down by appeasers, gays, secularists and a band of nefarious America haters.</p><p>In the real world of actual facts, the man is an embarrassment who has uttered a string of extremist statements. Boykin first came to Americans United’s attention back in 2003. He had a habit of wearing his uniform to far-right events where he would bash Muslims and peddle “Christian nation” nonsense.</p><p>In one case, the White House had to issue a “global message” distancing itself from one of Boykin’s Islamophobic rants. He was eventually sanctioned for his antics with a punishment that was described as “appropriate” but not “significant.”</p><p>I’m not sure why the Army let Boykin go with a slap on the wrist. Perhaps officials knew he would soon be retiring. In any case, Boykin did leave the Army and ended up going to work for the FRC as an executive vice president. There he has continued to utter offensive nonsense on a regular basis. In other words, Boykin fits right in at the FRC.</p><p>Around the time Boykin <a href="https://www.au.org/blogs/wall-of-separation/general-nuttiness-frc-hires-islam-bashing-ex-army-officer-for-top-position">was hired at the FRC</a>, for example, it came to light that he had accused Obama of plotting a “Marxist insurgency” backed by a secret military force “that would control the population in America.”</p><p>Two years ago, Boykin wrote<a href="http://www.texasinsider.org/sharia-law-or-the-constitution-america-must-choose/"> a column </a>suggesting that Islam isn’t fully entitled to First Amendment protections. He has also <a href="http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/boykin-no-mosques-america">argued </a>that no more mosques should be built in America.</p><p>The FRC has been labeled a “hate group” by the Southern Poverty Law Center. The Religious Right group chafes at this designation and insists that it merely provides a voice for the concerns of conservative Christians.</p><p>Actually, the FRC is increasingly a forum for views that are not conservative but reactionary. Boykin’s latest outburst, which amounts to an almost wistful rumination on the fact that our structure of government prevents military coups, is yet one more example of that.</p><p>I don’t claim to be an expert on military issues. A few semesters of ROTC in college was the closest I ever came to serving. But I do know this: There is a term for people who sit around expressing regret over the fact that our military doesn’t have the power to unseat a democratically elected president by force.</p><p>They are called extremists. </p></div></div><div class="tags clearfix"><div class="field-label">Issues:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><span class="field-item"><a href="/issues/descriptions-and-activities-religious-right-groups">Descriptions and Activities of Religious Right Groups</a></span></div></div><div class="tags clearfix"><div class="field-label">Tags:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/william-boykin">William Boykin</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/family-reasearch-council">Family Reasearch Council</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/worldnetdaily">WorldNetDaily</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/islamophobia">Islamophobia</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/president-barack-obama">President Barack Obama</a></span></div></div>Mon, 04 Nov 2013 15:47:17 +0000Rob Boston9126 at https://au.orghttps://au.org/blogs/wall-of-separation/generally-nutty-frc-executive-says-some-in-the-military-are-itching-to-take#commentsHypocrisy Alert: Religious Right Likes Pulpit Politics Only When It Tilts Their Wayhttps://au.org/blogs/wall-of-separation/hypocrisy-alert-religious-right-likes-pulpit-politics-only-when-it-tilts
<a href="/about/people/rob-boston">Rob Boston</a><div class="field field-name-field-blog-type field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="/blogs/wall-of-separation">Wall of Separation</a></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-callout field-type-text-long field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even">President Barack Obama and his family went to church on Sunday for Easter services. And guess what, the Religious Right still isn’t likely to be happy.</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="prose"><p>Religious Right leaders have complained a lot about President Barack Obama since he took office in January of 2009. Among their litany of gripes is that the president doesn’t go to church very often. (This, of course, just feeds kooky right-wing conspiracy theories that Obama is secretly a Muslim.)</p><p>Well, Obama and his family went to church on Sunday for Easter services. And guess what, the Religious Right still isn’t likely to be happy.</p><p>The Obamas<a href="http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57577180/pastor-slams-religious-right-at-obamas-easter-service/"> attended services</a> at St. John’s Episcopal Church, which scholars often call “the church of the presidents” because so many chief executives have worshipped there over the years.</p><p>The Rev. Luis Leon, rector of the church, delivered the sermon. According to press accounts, Leon based his remarks on the Gospel of John and argued that Americans should stop obsessing over the past and look to the here and now. Jesus, he said, gave a similar message.</p><p>But Leon did not stop there. He went on to say, “It drives me crazy when the captains of the Religious Right are always calling us back, back, back -- for blacks to be back in the back of the bus, for women to be back in the kitchen, for gays to be in the closet, and for…immigrants to be on their side of the border.”</p><p>Added Leon, “The message of Easter is about the power of love over loveless power….God addresses us in the now.”</p><p>I’m expecting Religious Right leaders to throw a fit over this. Some already are. First out of the gate is Mark Tooley of the Institute on Religion and Democracy (IRD). On the IRD’s blog, <a href="http://juicyecumenism.com/2013/03/31/politicizing-easter-at-church-of-the-presidents/">Tooley wrote</a>, “It’s sad when clergy egregiously politicize worship, especially on an important holy day at an historic church that used to symbolize non-partisan unity.” He accused Leon of employing “some cheap shots.”</p><p>I have to wonder if Tooley had a straight face when he wrote this. So the Religious Right is suddenly concerned about politicizing churches – the <em>Religious Right?</em> Seriously?</p><p>This would be the same Religious Right that has been working to turn churches into cogs in a massive right-wing political machine at least since 1978. It’s the same Religious Right whose leaders tell pastors to ignore federal law and endorse candidates from the pulpit. It’s the same Religious Right that annually holds conferences where there’s little talk about Jesus but where far-right politicians are fêted and pastors are instructed on how to convert their houses of worship into the equivalent of local Republican Party precincts.</p><p>Please! Tooley isn’t angry about the politicization of churches; he’s angry because this particular member of the clergy made comments that lean in the liberal direction. (I don’t recall Tooley complaining when the Catholic bishops used the Red Mass <a href="https://www.au.org/blogs/wall-of-separation/mass-mess-bishops-use-church-service-to-lobby-supreme-court">to lecture elected officials</a> and judges on issues like abortion, same-sex marriage and tax funding of religion. I don’t recall him freaking out when surgeon Ben Carson, who is suddenly the darling of the right wing, used the National Prayer Breakfast <a href="http://www.christianpost.com/news/dr-ben-carson-says-national-prayer-breakfast-speech-was-meant-to-please-god-video-90762/">to preach the joys </a>of a flat tax.)</p><p>Clergy are perfectly free to address public issues in their sermons if they choose to do so. It’s only illegal when it takes the form of church intervention in an election. And with Religious Right leaders’ record of partisan politicization of pulpits, they’re in no position to carp when a sermon about public issues doesn’t break their way.</p><p>Off in the distance, I hear the howls of the hypocrites….</p></div></div><div class="tags clearfix"><div class="field-label">Issues:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><span class="field-item"><a href="/issues/descriptions-and-activities-religious-right-groups">Descriptions and Activities of Religious Right Groups</a></span></div></div><div class="tags clearfix"><div class="field-label">Tags:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/president-barack-obama">President Barack Obama</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/institute-for-religion-and-democracy">Institute for Religion and Democracy</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/mark-tooley">Mark Tooley</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/luis-leon">Luis Leon</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/st-john-s-episcopal-church">St. John’s Episcopal Church</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/pulpit-politicking">Pulpit Politicking</a></span></div></div>Mon, 01 Apr 2013 15:34:09 +0000Rob Boston8255 at https://au.orghttps://au.org/blogs/wall-of-separation/hypocrisy-alert-religious-right-likes-pulpit-politics-only-when-it-tilts#commentsNew Round, Old Fight: Why The Religious Right Rejects The Obama Compromise Over Birth Controlhttps://au.org/blogs/wall-of-separation/new-round-old-fight-why-the-religious-right-rejects-the-obama-compromise
<a href="/about/people/rob-boston">Rob Boston</a><div class="field field-name-field-blog-type field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="/blogs/wall-of-separation">Wall of Separation</a></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-callout field-type-text-long field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"> No matter what the Obama administration does on contraceptive access, far-right religious groups are never satisfied.</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="prose"><p>I continue to be amazed that in the year 2013 our nation continues to grapple with the issue of access to contraceptives, a matter most advanced nations laid to rest long ago.</p><p>On Friday, the Obama administration made another attempt to address the concerns of conservative religious employers who say they don’t want to provide birth control for employees. Once again, it’s not going well.</p><p>A little history: When the Affordable Care Act was passed, it contained provisions allowing the administration to issue regulations concerning what type of health care coverage employers would be required to offer. Contraceptives are included in the baseline care package because so many Americans use birth control, and it plays an important role in preventative care. (Plus, it has medicinal uses.)</p><p>Under the original proposal, houses of worship were exempt from the requirement to include birth control coverage. But religiously affiliated nonprofits such as colleges and hospitals – that hire people of many faiths, serve the general public and often are government-subsidized – were required to provide insurance plans that included contraception. Businesses and other for-profit enterprises were required to do as well.</p><p>The Catholic bishops and the Religious Right responded to this arrangement by filing a <a href="https://www.au.org/church-state/february-2013-church-state/featured/conscience-contraception-and-the-court">slew of lawsuits</a>.</p><p>On Friday, the administration offered the details of a compromise. The proposed new rule makes sure employees at religious nonprofits have access to birth control but provides an additional buffer between the church-related institutions and contraceptive coverage. Insurance companies would pick up the tab for contraception and would do the work of notifying employees of religiously affiliated institutions that they are eligible under a separate, individual policy – one that is provided wholly by the insurance company.</p><p>That’s still not good enough for some on the right. The<a href="http://www.becketfund.org/hhsannouncement1/"> Becket Fund for Religious Liberty</a>, the <a href="http://www.frc.org/newsroom/updated-hhs-mandate-continues-attack-on-religious-freedom">Family Research Council</a> and several anti-abortion groups promptly attacked the new proposal.</p><p>The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops has yet to weigh in yet. The bishops say they are studying the proposal. <em>Washington Post</em> columnist E.J. Dionne is hopeful that the church hierarchy will <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/ej-dionne-catholic-church-wins-on-contraception-coverage/2013/02/01/94a3eb80-6cb0-11e2-bd36-c0fe61a205f6_story.html">accept the plan</a> and let the nation move on.</p><p>I’m less optimistic.</p><p>The fact is, the administration is bending over backwards to appease these religious groups. Obama and officials at the Department of Health and Human Services have gone out of their way to make sure that aggressive sectarian lobbies aren’t offended by something that has never been any of these clerics’ business: whether people choose to use birth control.</p><p>Yet no matter what the Obama team does, these far-right religious groups are never satisfied.</p><p>We need to take a step back and take a deeper look at what’s really going on here. As I noted in <a href="https://www.au.org/church-state/may-2012-church-state/featured/sex-sects-and-the-battle-over-contraception">a story </a>I wrote about this issue last year, the bishops, aided by some allies in the fundamentalist Protestant community, have long opposed birth control. (Most fundamentalists don’t oppose all contraceptives, but do single out some kinds they consider to be “abortifacients.”)</p><p>Prior to 1965, these groups were powerful enough to put laws in place in some states banning the sale and distribution of contraceptives – for <em>anyone</em>, even married couples. The Supreme Court struck these measures down (as they applied to married couples) in a landmark ruling called <a href="http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1964/1964_496"><em>Griswold v. Connecticut</em>.</a></p><p>Religious zealots are still fighting the issues raised by <em>Griswold</em>. They lost that case badly – and certainly they’ve lost in the court of public opinion since then – but the health care battle gave them new life, and they <a href="http://www.theatlanticwire.com/national/2013/02/birth-control-compromise-religious-right/61717/">ran with it</a>.</p><p>An issue that had been dormant for many years suddenly sprang to life. It’s now being seriously argued that an individual’s private decision to use birth control somehow offends the alleged religious liberty rights – and the “conscience” – of giant corporations. The most amazing thing about this argument is that some courts are taking it seriously.</p><p>The Obama administration went out of its way to work out a compromise in this area. It went beyond what the Constitution requires. But now the time has come to realize that there can be no “compromise” with zealots who pine not just for the 1950s but the 1350s.</p><p>The administration’s stated goal is a policy that allows as many Americans as possible to get and use safe and effective forms of birth control. The goal of groups like Becket, the FRC and the strident anti-abortion groups is the opposite: to deny access to as many Americans as possible because they consider use of birth control a sin, and they’ve yet to come to grips with the social changes that have occurred since birth control became widely available in the 1960s.</p><p>There is no common ground here. It’s time to ask a hard question: Why is the administration even listening to, yet along trying to appease, these forces?</p></div></div><div class="tags clearfix"><div class="field-label">Issues:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><span class="field-item"><a href="/issues/reproductive-health-conscience-clauses-for-religious-objectors">Reproductive Health &amp; Conscience Clauses for Religious Objectors</a></span></div></div><div class="tags clearfix"><div class="field-label">Tags:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/birth-control">birth control</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/becket-fund-for-religious-liberty">Becket Fund for Religious Liberty</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/family-research-council">Family Research Council</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/affordable-care-act">Affordable Care Act</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/president-barack-obama">President Barack Obama</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/ej-dionne">E.J. Dionne</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/us-conference-catholic-bishops">U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops</a></span></div></div>Mon, 04 Feb 2013 18:54:51 +0000Rob Boston8026 at https://au.orghttps://au.org/blogs/wall-of-separation/new-round-old-fight-why-the-religious-right-rejects-the-obama-compromise#commentsStorm Damage And Religion: Hurricane Sandy Didn’t Blow Away The Constitutionhttps://au.org/blogs/legislative/storm-damage-and-religion-hurricane-sandy-didn-t-blow-away-the-constitution
<a href="/about/people/maggie-garrett">Maggie Garrett</a><div class="field field-name-field-blog-type field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="/blogs/legislative">Legislative</a></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-callout field-type-text-long field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even">It’s not the job of the government to provide places for people to worship or to subsidize sacred spaces.</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="prose"><p>Yesterday’s <em>Wall Street Journal</em> contained an <a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324039504578261581899619590.html">opinion piece</a> by Avi Schick, an attorney in private practice in New York. Schick demands taxpayer aid to pay for houses of worship damaged by Hurricane Sandy and implies that this is just a commonsense thing to do.</p><p>I was born and raised on the Jersey shore. My parents are still making repairs to their house, which sustained damage in Sandy’s wake. Believe me, I understand that this is serious business.</p><p>The storm caused extensive damage along the East Coast, and I feel for everyone who took a hit. But I also know that we must resist the temptation to use a disaster – even one of this magnitude – as an excuse to violate core constitutional values.</p><p>One of those values is that government does not pay to erect, maintain or repair houses of worship. That has been our policy for more than 220 years in the United States. Religious groups are expected to pay their own way. Even in the wake of Sandy, we must keep it that way. Otherwise we could easily end up in a situation where taxpayer are handed the bill every time a house of worship needs repair.</p><p>Some argue that a policy like this is unfair because tax aid is often extended to other types of buildings in the wake of violent storms. In fact, most privately held non-profit groups don’t get taxpayer aid when disasters strike unless they perform some essential public service.</p><p>We must also remember that religion has always been subject to special rules under the U.S Constitution. On one hand, houses of worship don’t qualify for direct government support; on the other, they enjoy tax exemption and are often free from the regulations and oversight that other entities must follow.</p><p>This last point should not be overlooked. Religious groups already receive many special privileges under the law as well as a host of exemptions from laws that all other groups must follow. But the one thing they cannot receive is direct taxpayer support.</p><p>Simply put, it’s not the job of the government to provide places for people to worship or to subsidize sacred spaces. Unlike schools, hospitals, libraries and community centers, houses of worship serve a private purpose. They exist to promulgate specific theological points of view. Forcing taxpayers to support the construction or repair of structures that exist chiefly to promote theology is no different than imposing a religion tax on people.</p><p>As I explained recently in a letter to congressional leaders, Houses of worship can qualify for certain forms of limited and indirect governmental aid, such as low-interest Small Business Administration loans. But their best hedge against disaster is the same thing most homeowners in America rely upon – a good insurance policy. Religion is barred from looking to the government for a bailout.</p><p>Hurricane Sandy was a tragic event. Many people – including my own mother and father – are still dealing with the after-effects. Let’s not compound the tragedy by violating one of the central commands of our Constitution: that in America, no one can be forced to support religion.</p><p>Neither President Barack Obama, nor Congress, should yield to the demands for funding of houses of worship.</p><p> </p></div></div><div class="tags clearfix"><div class="field-label">Issues:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><span class="field-item"><a href="/issues/constructing-and-refurbishing-buildings-used-religious-activities">Constructing and Refurbishing Buildings Used for Religious Activities</a></span></div></div><div class="tags clearfix"><div class="field-label">Tags:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/hurricane-sandy">Hurricane Sandy</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/fema">FEMA</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/avi-schick">Avi Schick</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/president-barack-obama">President Barack Obama</a></span></div></div>Fri, 25 Jan 2013 21:05:42 +0000Rob Boston7946 at https://au.orghttps://au.org/blogs/legislative/storm-damage-and-religion-hurricane-sandy-didn-t-blow-away-the-constitution#comments